Check out Cuba, still eating despite U.S. efforts to embargo the population from agricultural products and the Soviet Union collapsing. That is, provided, the U.S. government doesn't block the links:
"After the ending of subsidies from the Soviet Union in 1989, combined with the tightening of the U.S. trade embargo, Cuba was hurting and people were hungry. Output from the Cuban agricultural system, dependent on chemical inputs, subsidized petroleum and Soviet machinery, slowed to a trickle. Cuba, led by Fidel Castro, went into what they called the "Special Period." One of the Special Period initiatives was to develop a nearly completely local and biologically-based food production system. Since then, Cuba has developed the world's most comprehensive modern organic agricultural system and has helped to answer the question "Could organic farming feed the world." "
It'll just keep the highschool kids trying to "make a buck" from getting into trouble too easily. The first thing I did when I had a scanner was to use it to blow up and examine money:-) Good thing I didn't have a colour laser printer.
I was raised Catholic, amongst many who would call themselves "Christian"... there are very few people out there who live by the tenants of their own religion.
I'm not at all religious, but I'm not devoutly unreligious.
How did this start? Hang on, I'm checking my history...
Oh yeah, some AC started a hate-filled rant which sounded like it was defending Christians... which I found odd because hate-filled rants are decidedly un-Christian... but common among Christians anyways.... so I said there were "good and bad in every bunch."
Now I don't mean to take that as a philosophical doctrine... applying it to pedophiles, yeah, I guess you can say that generally accepted social definitions of "good" slot them right into the "bad" category, no quesiton... I was clinging to the slant that hate filled rants were decidedly un-Christian, even against pedophiles.
This is by any standard that we hold in Western society...
Jesus still loves you despite your <insert cause here> extremism and pedophelia.
Christianity alwasy struck me as a little strange in that the old testament holds an absolute good and absolute evil, but Jesus seems to say that no man is capable of being truely either.
So I'm only being half serious. I happen to belive that what you've implied, an "evil" pedophile is absurd. A dangerous one yes, a misguided one yes, a sick one, yes, but evil or good? No... that's silly, nobody is by nature evil or good. Those are dumb concepts.
It would be of greater bennefit to society if people spent their energy trying to help people with screwed up antisocial behaviours rather than spend their energy talking about how they'll tear them limb from limb or mutilate them in some odd fashion.
I had a similar idea, I figured that you could have it do stuff like do an rsync when you start your engine...
Although personally, I would like a car MP3 player which takes USB memory keys or compact flash and can play low bitrate MP3s like the various radio programmes out there on the 'net.
Bump proof and no stupid disks. The hard or expensive part really is just the display and controls.
Note various non-Christian viewpoints regarding fellow man: "...sick fuckers...", "And all... hold hateful views", "they are just as bad", "they really ARE as bad", "weirdos who harrass people"
Just a thought.... your evil scheme might work if party "B" were not a person, but were instead a corporation. The history of developers holding copyright could sue it out of existance. They could use it to shield financial liability, kind of like short-lived housing developers do today.
Even though the module source code is defined as "derivative works" in GPL
It's not a GPL claim (or not necessarily a GPL claim), it's part of copyright law. Of course if it weren't in copyright law, it wouldn't be binding if you didn't agree with the terms of the GPL.
You're right that it's not obvious that the module's source code would be a derivative work, but I think this is where the courts discretion has to come in.
If you think about it, what does the code mean? What is the code for? It is an important point, otherwise you could split hairs and declare your MP3 collection an abstract magnetic painting of magnetic dots... the fact that you could squeeze it through an MP3 player is free for you to do if you're into that kind of illegal activity.
The module is meaningless without the kernel. The module would never have been written without the kernel. The module would never work without compiling it into the kernel. The kernel is so vital to the design and layout of your source code that without it, the module would never have been written in its present form.
There might not be a clear logic test to determine whether or not something is a derivative work, but if left to the discretion of the courts, I'd have a hard time believing that a module would not be a derivative work.
Yes, but any GPL (or patent and copyright) disputes would be between parties A and B
No, anyone who contributed to the GPL'd code would have a claim that their code was illegally distributed. It doesn't matter if it was the patented modification or not.
The fellow who incorporated the code, "B" would be on the hook for violating the GPL... it doesn't say you have to know about the patented code(!)
This stuff treads onto the tough area of "derivative works". A lot of arguing about this occured regarding binary-only kernel modules.
What you're describing is more of a source-only kernel module (as an example) written and distributed by somebody who disagrees with the terms of the GPL... so they can still use the GPL'd software, just not distribute it... and their code is offered with a different license (e.g. BSD) to the main source tree, for some unsuspecting person to compile into the kernel.
It's really hard to argue that it is not a derivative work because the result... the compiled executable... is utterly unatainable without the original work from which it derives. The derivative code, without the original work is useless and nonsensical.
I think one would stand a better chance to create some kind of standard practical binary interface, then code your program to that standard (it wouldn't be a module anymore), and write a GPL'd module which provides that interface.
To be a real twerp, you could write and publish your spec and your non-GPL'd side before you write and publish your GPL'd side... or even depend on somebody else to write it from only the spec.
For kernel modules this is generally considered impractical, but for other stuff, like spell checkers or whatever, I think it's been done.
You can't put the code back into the source tree without agreeing to the GPL... that's distributing your modification.
You can sue the end users, but the courts would probably frown on you not providing a warning before asking for blood, and the code would be further undistributable by anyone in the jurisdiction of the patent.
Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).
You can't do that under the GPL. By attempting it, you've given up your rights to distribute the software.
The GPL's wording on this is, IMHO poor. But the subtlety of the wording is very very important, and may provide better protection than the CPL... (which I haven't read)
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. . .."
The odd part about this is that 1. if you contribute the patented code and don't implicitly grant license to use it, you violate the GPL and are guilty of copyright infringement.
More interesting, and this is where it might beat the CPL (or at least your example), is in situations where somebody notices a patent violation in a GPL'd product which they didn't write, there is absolutely no way they can profit from exploiting the patent while simultaneously allowing the software to be distributed.
This is a double-edged sword, and, IMHO a very sharp one. There's no incentive to persue patents on GPL'd products... except to stop their distribution and hold the author of the patented system guilty of violating the GPL.
Now the patent holder might persue the author punatively, but the copyright holders will probably not care.
OOO sometimes handles these formats even better than various office versions in between
This is a very important point which doesn't get stressed enough when people complain about MS office compatability.
Even different version of MS Office has trouble reading MS Office documents consistently... or a more appropriate comparison... even the same version of MS Office, for MacOS v.s. Windows has trouble reading MS Office documents consistently.
People also tend to rely heavily on the idiosyncracies of their local configuration (printer metrics, fonts, paper size) to align and layout their documents. An awful lot of people who write documents lack basic wordprocessing skills, yet they attempt complex desktop publishing tasks using a wordprocessor(!)
When these documents are converted into a different wordprocessor, it is no wonder that OOO can't match the nonsense arbitrary document layout... it can't possibly know the idosyncracies of Bob's Win2k machine with a Lexmark printer, although it can attempt to match the idosyncracies of Bob's wordprocessor.
How does this explain the difference between the CRT and LCD?
Also, unless you've got special hardware, your PC clock will always be off.
Finally, the interrupt controller is cascaded in the PC... It has been as long as I can remember. Without cascading, it would have 8 hardware interrupts.
PCI, USB and newer technologies are designed to reduce the problem by sharing the same interrupt. I haven't seen a machine with interrupt conflicts since probably 2000, and that was old hardware with all those PnP problems old machines had.
A few years ago I was demoing Linux to a friend of mine, he said "hey, I hear it doesn't crash at all"
Just then the Xserver locked the system, couldn't even telnet in.
ATI video card. It's kinda tough to argue that Linux is better than Windows if Linux and Windows at the time both needed sucky video drivers to do anything with stability.
Not much has changed... except maybe the Windows drivers have gotten worse.
I personally think there's no singular mind at work on it, it's just one IBMer trying to get a patent listed on their resume and their manager trying to look important.
Yeah, 18-year old Bobby sells his token for a carton of cigarettes only to be shunned at school the next day for flirting with 12 year olds.
If the login is associated with an identity, I think corrupt adults manipulating their kids or buying the tokens will stick out as sorely as if they were hanging out in the parking lot.
It might not be something to bank on, but it turns an unmanagable problem into something conceivably managable.
There's a huge change in the dynamic which Cretien put through... The election funding. Each vote sends a buck or so in funding to any party with more than 2% or something of the vote.
If you think about it, it's a very minor kickstart to proportional representation... at least the funding is distributed proportionally.
So the Greens now have federal funding for their campaign. That's a big win.
The Liberals pushed hard the "don't waste your vote! A vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives!". The jerks even had the f-ing nerve to come into my riding, walk past the Green party sign on my lawn and tell me I was wasting my vote. If jaded vote splits is the best reason to vote for your canidate, then I don't think I'm going to change the system by flocking with the sheep.
Voting Green is the most important vote I ever made. It's a shame we can't have more independent representation, but party politics and majority governments rule the land... unless somebody else can be strong enough to get into power and change the rules which got them there.
A very odd observation a Taiwaneese friend of mine made: Democracy took root in Taiwan by changing the minds of the youth... I see the Greens doing the same... the next Green Canidates will have learned Green politics before they were of voting age... and the youth are pretty damned jaded about the existing system.
Yeah, Canada suffers a little bit from a two-party problem, but really, the Canadian house of parliment isn't comprised of two parties, there are at least four sharing power now, and Canada has a minority government, so no party has complete power today. It's a great balance between the Corrupt party, the Evil party, the Incompetant party and the Separatists!
The Green Party in Canada seems less like an environmental party and more like a party which is concerned with long term prosperity.
For some reason people hear "green" and think "environmentalist" which to them means "leftist" which is further skewed to mean "extreme liberal". It's just not what I read. I read Green as a party more aligned with right-wing econimic values and "centerist" moral ideals than anything left-wing.
In the Canadian federal election, the federal parties were all mimicing Green environmental policies, but ignoring the fundamental principles of the policies and trying to make the Greens look like a party soft on environmental issues.
You can promise all the windmills and solar farms you want. They're not going to work unless people are going to make money building them and the economy will strengthen for it.
The most remarkable economic and environmental policy in the Green campaign, IMHO, was to get people to slowly pay closer to the "real price" of fuel.
Shipping becomes more expensive, driving becomes more expensive, manufacturing certain types of items becomes more expensive and... taxes drop.
So cities shrink, public transit improves, and local agriculture no longer has to compete with distant agriculture for local markets. I mean why are our strawberries shipped thousands of kilometers from Spain and Califorinia?!, yet they often cost less than the strawberries of local growers, and the local growers are going out of business... selling their lands to developers, who feed supply for housing which is only accessible because people can drive great distances to work(!)
Very small, well thought-out fundamental changes can direct economic development into positive directions.
... I of course have no idea what the Greens are doing in the U.S. federal election though.. it's like an earlier post asked, aren't the Greens supposed to get well-established in community politics before going federal?
If Disney used the Grimm works then they would have been using a copyrighted work.. but I suppose if it is as you say, they could aruge that they borrowed from the oral tradition which predated the works... and have no material which derives directly from the Grimm works:-(
The Disney stories are so divergent from the Grimm stories, that it's plausible I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, match Jehovah's Witnesses with Amway salespeople. Both will talk and neither will listen.
Check out Cuba, still eating despite U.S. efforts to embargo the population from agricultural products and the Soviet Union collapsing. That is, provided, the U.S. government doesn't block the links:
"After the ending of subsidies from the Soviet Union in 1989, combined with the tightening of the U.S. trade embargo, Cuba was hurting and people were hungry. Output from the Cuban agricultural system, dependent on chemical inputs, subsidized petroleum and Soviet machinery, slowed to a trickle. Cuba, led by Fidel Castro, went into what they called the "Special Period." One of the Special Period initiatives was to develop a nearly completely local and biologically-based food production system. Since then, Cuba has developed the world's most comprehensive modern organic agricultural system and has helped to answer the question "Could organic farming feed the world." "
http://www.newfarm.org/international/features/0703 /cubaconf.shtml
It'll just keep the highschool kids trying to "make a buck" from getting into trouble too easily. The first thing I did when I had a scanner was to use it to blow up and examine money :-) Good thing I didn't have a colour laser printer.
It seems worthwhile.
10 posts in, and already TWO references to throwing people in jail for:
All you damn listmakers should be thrown in prison!
I was raised Catholic, amongst many who would call themselves "Christian"... there are very few people out there who live by the tenants of their own religion.
I'm not at all religious, but I'm not devoutly unreligious.
How did this start? Hang on, I'm checking my history...
Oh yeah, some AC started a hate-filled rant which sounded like it was defending Christians... which I found odd because hate-filled rants are decidedly un-Christian... but common among Christians anyways.... so I said there were "good and bad in every bunch."
Now I don't mean to take that as a philosophical doctrine... applying it to pedophiles, yeah, I guess you can say that generally accepted social definitions of "good" slot them right into the "bad" category, no quesiton... I was clinging to the slant that hate filled rants were decidedly un-Christian, even against pedophiles.
Damn, I think we've mutilated this thread.
This is by any standard that we hold in Western society...
Jesus still loves you despite your <insert cause here> extremism and pedophelia.
Christianity alwasy struck me as a little strange in that the old testament holds an absolute good and absolute evil, but Jesus seems to say that no man is capable of being truely either.
So I'm only being half serious. I happen to belive that what you've implied, an "evil" pedophile is absurd. A dangerous one yes, a misguided one yes, a sick one, yes, but evil or good? No... that's silly, nobody is by nature evil or good. Those are dumb concepts.
It would be of greater bennefit to society if people spent their energy trying to help people with screwed up antisocial behaviours rather than spend their energy talking about how they'll tear them limb from limb or mutilate them in some odd fashion.
I had a similar idea, I figured that you could have it do stuff like do an rsync when you start your engine...
Although personally, I would like a car MP3 player which takes USB memory keys or compact flash and can play low bitrate MP3s like the various radio programmes out there on the 'net.
Bump proof and no stupid disks. The hard or expensive part really is just the display and controls.
Note various non-Christian viewpoints regarding fellow man: "...sick fuckers...", "And all... hold hateful views", "they are just as bad", "they really ARE as bad", "weirdos who harrass people"
There's good and bad in every bunch.
Just a thought.... your evil scheme might work if party "B" were not a person, but were instead a corporation. The history of developers holding copyright could sue it out of existance. They could use it to shield financial liability, kind of like short-lived housing developers do today.
Even though the module source code is defined as "derivative works" in GPL
It's not a GPL claim (or not necessarily a GPL claim), it's part of copyright law. Of course if it weren't in copyright law, it wouldn't be binding if you didn't agree with the terms of the GPL.
You're right that it's not obvious that the module's source code would be a derivative work, but I think this is where the courts discretion has to come in.
If you think about it, what does the code mean? What is the code for? It is an important point, otherwise you could split hairs and declare your MP3 collection an abstract magnetic painting of magnetic dots... the fact that you could squeeze it through an MP3 player is free for you to do if you're into that kind of illegal activity.
The module is meaningless without the kernel. The module would never have been written without the kernel. The module would never work without compiling it into the kernel. The kernel is so vital to the design and layout of your source code that without it, the module would never have been written in its present form.
There might not be a clear logic test to determine whether or not something is a derivative work, but if left to the discretion of the courts, I'd have a hard time believing that a module would not be a derivative work.
Yes, but any GPL (or patent and copyright) disputes would be between parties A and B
No, anyone who contributed to the GPL'd code would have a claim that their code was illegally distributed. It doesn't matter if it was the patented modification or not.
The fellow who incorporated the code, "B" would be on the hook for violating the GPL... it doesn't say you have to know about the patented code(!)
This stuff treads onto the tough area of "derivative works". A lot of arguing about this occured regarding binary-only kernel modules.
What you're describing is more of a source-only kernel module (as an example) written and distributed by somebody who disagrees with the terms of the GPL... so they can still use the GPL'd software, just not distribute it... and their code is offered with a different license (e.g. BSD) to the main source tree, for some unsuspecting person to compile into the kernel.
It's really hard to argue that it is not a derivative work because the result... the compiled executable... is utterly unatainable without the original work from which it derives. The derivative code, without the original work is useless and nonsensical.
I think one would stand a better chance to create some kind of standard practical binary interface, then code your program to that standard (it wouldn't be a module anymore), and write a GPL'd module which provides that interface.
To be a real twerp, you could write and publish your spec and your non-GPL'd side before you write and publish your GPL'd side... or even depend on somebody else to write it from only the spec.
For kernel modules this is generally considered impractical, but for other stuff, like spell checkers or whatever, I think it's been done.
You can't put the code back into the source tree without agreeing to the GPL... that's distributing your modification.
You can sue the end users, but the courts would probably frown on you not providing a warning before asking for blood, and the code would be further undistributable by anyone in the jurisdiction of the patent.
Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).
You can't do that under the GPL. By attempting it, you've given up your rights to distribute the software.
The GPL's wording on this is, IMHO poor. But the subtlety of the wording is very very important, and may provide better protection than the CPL... (which I haven't read)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. . . ."
The odd part about this is that 1. if you contribute the patented code and don't implicitly grant license to use it, you violate the GPL and are guilty of copyright infringement.
More interesting, and this is where it might beat the CPL (or at least your example), is in situations where somebody notices a patent violation in a GPL'd product which they didn't write, there is absolutely no way they can profit from exploiting the patent while simultaneously allowing the software to be distributed.
This is a double-edged sword, and, IMHO a very sharp one. There's no incentive to persue patents on GPL'd products... except to stop their distribution and hold the author of the patented system guilty of violating the GPL.
Now the patent holder might persue the author punatively, but the copyright holders will probably not care.
The GPL is tricky and subtle.
IANAL of course.
OOO sometimes handles these formats even better than various office versions in between
This is a very important point which doesn't get stressed enough when people complain about MS office compatability.
Even different version of MS Office has trouble reading MS Office documents consistently... or a more appropriate comparison... even the same version of MS Office, for MacOS v.s. Windows has trouble reading MS Office documents consistently.
People also tend to rely heavily on the idiosyncracies of their local configuration (printer metrics, fonts, paper size) to align and layout their documents. An awful lot of people who write documents lack basic wordprocessing skills, yet they attempt complex desktop publishing tasks using a wordprocessor(!)
When these documents are converted into a different wordprocessor, it is no wonder that OOO can't match the nonsense arbitrary document layout ... it can't possibly know the idosyncracies of Bob's Win2k machine with a Lexmark printer, although it can attempt to match the idosyncracies of Bob's wordprocessor.
How does this explain the difference between the CRT and LCD?
Also, unless you've got special hardware, your PC clock will always be off.
Finally, the interrupt controller is cascaded in the PC... It has been as long as I can remember. Without cascading, it would have 8 hardware interrupts.
PCI, USB and newer technologies are designed to reduce the problem by sharing the same interrupt. I haven't seen a machine with interrupt conflicts since probably 2000, and that was old hardware with all those PnP problems old machines had.
I've got a Pinto with your name on it.
A few years ago I was demoing Linux to a friend of mine, he said "hey, I hear it doesn't crash at all"
Just then the Xserver locked the system, couldn't even telnet in.
ATI video card. It's kinda tough to argue that Linux is better than Windows if Linux and Windows at the time both needed sucky video drivers to do anything with stability.
Not much has changed... except maybe the Windows drivers have gotten worse.
It's called parental leave, it's provincial, in Ontario it's not a year, it is not full paid time off and fathers can take it too.
http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/es/factsheets/fs_ preg.html
I personally think there's no singular mind at work on it, it's just one IBMer trying to get a patent listed on their resume and their manager trying to look important.
Yeah, 18-year old Bobby sells his token for a carton of cigarettes only to be shunned at school the next day for flirting with 12 year olds.
If the login is associated with an identity, I think corrupt adults manipulating their kids or buying the tokens will stick out as sorely as if they were hanging out in the parking lot.
It might not be something to bank on, but it turns an unmanagable problem into something conceivably managable.
I wonder what it would cost to get that currently-expired copyright :-)
There's a huge change in the dynamic which Cretien put through... The election funding. Each vote sends a buck or so in funding to any party with more than 2% or something of the vote.
If you think about it, it's a very minor kickstart to proportional representation... at least the funding is distributed proportionally.
So the Greens now have federal funding for their campaign. That's a big win.
The Liberals pushed hard the "don't waste your vote! A vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives!". The jerks even had the f-ing nerve to come into my riding, walk past the Green party sign on my lawn and tell me I was wasting my vote. If jaded vote splits is the best reason to vote for your canidate, then I don't think I'm going to change the system by flocking with the sheep.
Voting Green is the most important vote I ever made. It's a shame we can't have more independent representation, but party politics and majority governments rule the land... unless somebody else can be strong enough to get into power and change the rules which got them there.
A very odd observation a Taiwaneese friend of mine made: Democracy took root in Taiwan by changing the minds of the youth... I see the Greens doing the same... the next Green Canidates will have learned Green politics before they were of voting age... and the youth are pretty damned jaded about the existing system.
Yeah, Canada suffers a little bit from a two-party problem, but really, the Canadian house of parliment isn't comprised of two parties, there are at least four sharing power now, and Canada has a minority government, so no party has complete power today. It's a great balance between the Corrupt party, the Evil party, the Incompetant party and the Separatists!
The Green Party in Canada seems less like an environmental party and more like a party which is concerned with long term prosperity.
For some reason people hear "green" and think "environmentalist" which to them means "leftist" which is further skewed to mean "extreme liberal". It's just not what I read. I read Green as a party more aligned with right-wing econimic values and "centerist" moral ideals than anything left-wing.
In the Canadian federal election, the federal parties were all mimicing Green environmental policies, but ignoring the fundamental principles of the policies and trying to make the Greens look like a party soft on environmental issues.
You can promise all the windmills and solar farms you want. They're not going to work unless people are going to make money building them and the economy will strengthen for it.
The most remarkable economic and environmental policy in the Green campaign, IMHO, was to get people to slowly pay closer to the "real price" of fuel.
Shipping becomes more expensive, driving becomes more expensive, manufacturing certain types of items becomes more expensive and... taxes drop.
So cities shrink, public transit improves, and local agriculture no longer has to compete with distant agriculture for local markets. I mean why are our strawberries shipped thousands of kilometers from Spain and Califorinia?!, yet they often cost less than the strawberries of local growers, and the local growers are going out of business... selling their lands to developers, who feed supply for housing which is only accessible because people can drive great distances to work(!)
Very small, well thought-out fundamental changes can direct economic development into positive directions.
... I of course have no idea what the Greens are doing in the U.S. federal election though.. it's like an earlier post asked, aren't the Greens supposed to get well-established in community politics before going federal?
If Disney used the Grimm works then they would have been using a copyrighted work.. but I suppose if it is as you say, they could aruge that they borrowed from the oral tradition which predated the works... and have no material which derives directly from the Grimm works :-(
The Disney stories are so divergent from the Grimm stories, that it's plausible I suppose.